Third passage from the set from PrepTest 41. This one was, I think this one was kind of tough.

I don't know, for some reason it just took me a long time to read the passage.

I spent, I almost never spent more than four minutes on a passage,

but I was just over the four minute mark on the passage itself.

The questions were pretty standard under, solidly under one minute per question.

So altogether it was about eight minutes for this passage. So let's read it. Keep in mind

this is written in the mid 90s.

So a lot of energy demand is going to increase. Unfortunately, the increased use of fossil fuels,

which is what we generate electricity mostly from, right? Fossil fuels to generate may ultimately damage human environmental health.

So that's not good, right? So we have to get this extra electricity somehow, but if we use fossil fuels to get it,

right? It's going to be bad in these other ways. So for example, right? For example, this, this, you know,

how is it bad for human environment?

Well, emissions of air pollutants in these countries are expected to double over the next 25 years.

Even if energy is used efficiently, right? Even if we do efficiently, you know, we're not wasting,

we're not just leaving your air conditioning on when you're not home, right?

Even if people are efficient how they use it, so that local urban air quality will likely deteriorate, right?

So that's bad. So this is a problem. So we identified a problem, right? So renewable sources of electricity.

Ah, okay. So perhaps this is a solution to this problem of rising demand for electricity.

Renewable sources like what? Like solar, wind, water are possible solutions to the problem caused by increasing demand for electricity.

And unlike fossil fuels, right? Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy sources are available in virtually all geographic regions, right?

Because you get sun everywhere, you get wind everywhere, right?

And they allow electricity production without dangerous environmental pollutants.

And none of this, none of this air quality stuff, right?

So, and additionally, so now we're just listing all these great things about renewable, right?

I mean, fossil fuels, you might not find fossil fuels if you're up in the mountains, right?

You might have to ship them over from the Middle East, right?

But like wind, sun, that's everywhere. And also they don't produce bad air pollutants.

And additionally, on top of that, they're located closer to consumers so that, than plants that use fossil fuels.

So these renewable sources can reduce transmission and distribution costs as well, right?

Your energy plant is just right there, right? You don't have to transport electricity from hundreds of miles away.

Technology for a successful long-term exploitation of these renewable sources, however,

ah, so this however should really be placed in the front of the sentence.

So however, right, this seems like the issue here,

technology for the successful long-term exploitation are not always implemented successfully.

So I'm thinking, okay, so this sounds tentatively like it's the main point, right?

Because, you know, what do we learn? We learn of the problem, right? Increased electricity demand.

And the solution is not really a solution because fossil fuels will just make everything else bad.

But then we really get a solution, which is renewable sources and why it's all good.

And then the author says, wait, but long-term exploitation have not been successfully implemented always.

So that this sounds like it's something that needs backing.

So then I, you know, I see Brazil and rural Brazil.

I should probably write, I should probably write conclusion here, just not to be, not to be confusing.

So here comes the premise to back this unsuccessful implementation.

So in rural Brazil, for example, a million citizens don't have electricity, lack of necessary infrastructure, limited efforts.

In 92, Energy Agency for US developed a joint project to Brazilian states.

I wish I could name some Brazilian, but I can't.

So whatever, Oklahoma and Kansas, the Brazil versions of them, to install 800 household solar electrical systems and train local personnel,

local that's Brazilian personnel, to service them.

Right. Of course you can't actually fly people out from, like, I guess you could fly people out from the US, but that would be way too expensive.

Under the project's terms, the local utilities, right?

Again, locally to Brazilian till they install, they maintain, they own the system, collect fees.

So I guess the US provides what technology, right?

Backers, something who are the backers hope the project would attract enough private.

I'm guessing perhaps the author is a backer, right?

Perhaps the authors. And I also thought maybe the US is a backer, right?

Maybe the Brazilian states are backers. It kind of seems obvious because they're providing the necessary resources.

Would attract enough private investment for substantial expansion throughout Brazil.

But the project directors, I thought, wait a second.

But the project directors who are the project directors?

I mean, these these guys are most obviously the US and Brazilian people, right?

Because they're the ones that are doing all this stuff. Of course, they're directing them.

Right. But but the project director. So you see now that's why I'm sort of it's it's just poorly written, honestly.

It's poorly written so that you have some space to exercise your inference muscles.

Right. Who are the backers? Who are the project directors?

The fact that these two statements are placed side by side like this with a butt to contrast that makes me think that they're not the same people.

And project directors are most directly or I should say more obviously the the US firm and the Brazilian government,

because they're the people that are working on it. So I working on the project.

So I imagine their project directors. Right. But the project writers, what they rejected,

the relatively high cost of local Brazilian companies to produce the solar collectors.

Right. See, you know, the local they're like, OK, well, if you want to do this project, look, first we have to build them.

Right. So let's let's accept bids. And the local Brazilian companies, one, two, three, all start bidding.

So I can make this for a million. I can make this three million. I can make this for five thousand.

And we're like, you know, we the US and Brazilian states, we're like, no, that's too expensive.

You know, I'm rejecting your expensive bids to produce the solar collectors.

And the author is saying because we've rejected those bids, we've thus missed an opportunity to stimulate local production.

So this is the example. Remember, this whole thing is example of how it had to this technology hasn't always been successfully implemented.

Right. So contrasted with backers hoping the project would attract enough and private substantial expansion through Brazil.

But then we just sort of stopped it, nipped it at the bud, so to speak.

Consequently, a short term savings in startup costs. Right.

So I guess I guess, you know, if we didn't accept the Brazilian bids, we probably where do we get them?

Who built them? Maybe the US firms built them. Right. Maybe. I don't know.

Consequently, a short term savings and startup costs precluded long term benefits driving from the development local production capacity.

Right. So it sounds like perhaps the US was building them.

Right. Because if you accepted these relatively high bids of the Brazilian local contractors, then you give them an opportunity to learn how to do this.

Right. Sure. You know, in the short term, of course, they don't know how to do it. Never done it before.

So they can't compete with the US counterparts or bidding cheaper. Right.

But if they don't do it, they'll never learn how to do it. So I think that's what this is saying.

At development technological skill, which eventually would have led to independence from costly foreign expert.

Yeah. So this seems like we accepted the US bids.

As a result, participating utilities can generate only enough income to cover operating maintenance costs, which makes further investment unlikely.

Right. If you're barely you know, if you don't have excess capital to invest, you can't expand.

Thus, the movement toward a sustainable rural electricity remains stalled.

So this is a this just kind of wraps up as an example, as a premise to support the main conclusion that this kind of technology, renewable technology is not always successfully implemented.

Details for how what went wrong. You got to go into this passage or a paragraph, rather.

So then. But final paragraph, I'm thinking, wait, but so if there's a but over here, then this can't be the main conclusion anymore.

So I'm thinking, OK, perhaps this is not the main conclusion anymore. Let's test out that hypothesis.

But some efforts have avoided these pitfalls, these pitfalls of false referring to the rural Brazilian pitfalls.

OK, like what? So in the mid 80s, the Danish Energy Agency helped agencies in India to build three modern wind turbine plants and gradually developed local technical capacity.

See, this is good. Instead of the US, we have Danish. Instead of Brazil, we have India.

So this Danish Indian joint venture did actually develop local technical capacity.

Unlike the Brazilians, local participants were trained in planning, operating maintenance, construction, turbine.

The key term here is construction of turbines, which was what the failed bid did not allow Brazil to do.

Indian firms subsequently began manufacturing turbines. Great. And as more locally manufactured became available,

utilities able to increase their use of wind energy profitably.

The success is just the opposite of the Brazilian story.

Success of these small projects spurred enthusiasm. Indian utilities soon ordering more equipment.

Private investment came in. Enthusiasm is very important for new stuff because the Danish agency,

unlike the US counterpart, recognized importance of local involvement at all levels, even the construction of turbines level.

The project has a good chance of maintaining competitive profitable long run. So perfect.

So it seems like now the main point seems like some modification of this.

Right. Sure. Some even though sometimes not successful, there is at least one positive story of how it could be successful.

Right. That seems like the main point now. And as far as the structure, I think it's fairly straightforward.

The three paragraphs. So let's take a look at the questions.

Question 19, I almost got question 19 wrong, but if you just sort of look specifically at 5 through 9, so that's this thing right here, and focus on this word, for example.

For example tells you that this thing here, this next bit, 5 through 9, is going to be an example of this thing.

Unfortunately, the increased use of fossil fuels generating electricity may ultimately damage human environmental health.

Bad for human health, bad for environment. That's what this is.

We just take for granted that it will climb.

If you question this and you want the author to give you backup, there just isn't.

You're supposed to take this on faith.

So this doesn't substantiate that.

That's precisely, I mean, first of all, that has nothing to do with it.

And second of all, efficient energy use is an effective means of addressing environmental problems caused by this.

The only thing that they talk about time is how pollutants will double over the next 25 years.

There you go. Evidence.

For example, why should you believe that increased use of fossil fuels is bad for human health, bad for environment health?

Here's why you should believe.

So that's evidence for the claim that, see, fossil fuels are a problematic source of electricity.